Final Decision FIC2012-570
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION | |
|
Thomas White,
Complainant |
||
|
against
|
Docket #FIC 2012-570 | |
|
Civil Service Commission, City of
Bridgeport; and City of Bridgeport, Respondents |
May 8, 2013 |
The above captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 18, 2013, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1)(A), G.S.
2. It is found that by letter dated October 5, 2012, the complainant made a request to the respondent Commission for “all documents relating to the advertised position of Assistant Special Project Manager in the CitiStat Department” (the “requested records”).
3. It is found that, by email filed with the Commission on October 17, 2012, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the failure of the respondents to provide the requested records violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).
4. Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:
“Public records or files” means any recorded data or
information relating to the conduct of the public’s business
prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency,
or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law
or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or
information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed,
photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.
information relating to the conduct of the public’s business
prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency,
or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law
or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or
information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed,
photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.
5. Sections 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., state, respectively, in relevant parts:
Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state
statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public
agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or
by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every
person shall have the right to (1) inspect such records promptly
during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records
in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3)
receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-
212.
statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public
agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or
by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every
person shall have the right to (1) inspect such records promptly
during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records
in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3)
receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-
212.
...
Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon
request, a plain, facsimile, electronic or certified copy of any
public record.
6. It is concluded that the requested records, if any exist, are “public records” within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
7. It is found that on December 5, 2012, the respondents provided a package of requested records to the complainant. Later in December 2012, the respondents provided a supplemental package of additional requested records. These records comprise applications, resumes, letters of recommendation, relevant emails, and handwritten notes that appear to be interview notes.
8. Based on the credible sworn testimony of Jodie-Paul Arndt, the Director of the CitiStat Department, it is found that the respondents do not maintain any additional requested records, copies of which have not been provided to the complainant.
9. In a post hearing brief, filed by email and dated March 20, 2013, the complainant argued he was not provided any record stating the criteria used to determine which candidates warranted an interview. But, it is found that this objection was answered by the broader testimony that the respondents have provided the complainant with copies of all records that they maintain within the scope of the complainant’s request.
10. It is concluded that the respondents did not violate §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by failing to provide copies of requested records which they maintained.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 8, 2013.
__________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S., THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:
Thomas White
446 Savoy Street
Bridgeport, CT 06606
446 Savoy Street
Bridgeport, CT 06606
Civil Service Commission, City of Bridgeport; and
City of Bridgeport
c/o Gregory Conte, Esq.
Bridgeport City Attorney Office
999 Broad Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604
City of Bridgeport
c/o Gregory Conte, Esq.
Bridgeport City Attorney Office
999 Broad Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604
____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2012-570/FD/cac/5/8/2013